In that connection it noted that, while the pending investigation had not made any findings as to the guilt of A. or B., the article had backed the version of events given by B., who had been interviewed

bankruptcy or at a time when he knew that bankruptcy could not be avoided to his creditor A W Vredeveld and his creditor A M Van Buringen in settlement and payment of his debts, an amount of 3000,- guilders

If the statute no longer applied as a result of extrinsic circumstances irrelevant to the issue of guilt, the criminal act had to be adjudicated under the former statute.

[I] [V] [Adresse 2] [Localité 5] S.A. [10] ([10]) [Adresse 1] [Localité 7] Représentée par Me Elisa GUEILHERS de la SELEURL ELISA GUEILHERS AVOCAT, Plaidant/Postulant, avocat au barreau de VERSAILLES

The court also ruled that the decisions confirming the applicant’s guilt raised “serious doubts as [the complainant’s] statements had been inconsistent … and the testimony of the anonymous witness M had

Vu la procédure suivante : Par une requête et un mémoire, enregistrés les 18 janvier et 16 février 2022, Mme C A, représentée par Me Guillier, demande au tribunal, dans le dernier état de ses écritures

D, représenté par Me Guillier, demande à la cour : 1°) d'annuler ce jugement du tribunal administratif de Rennes du 13 septembre 2024 ; 2°) d'annuler l'arrêté du 10 juin 2024 ; 3°) d'enjoindre au

la société SNP détenait 63,6 % du capital social de la société ACS, d'autre part, les sociétés Saficard et Centrale des Opticiens détenaient chacune plus de 25 % de son capital et, enfin, la société Guilde

[the applicant] acknowledged her guilt in the administrative offense, but objected to the administrative removal from Russia referring to her family’s residence in Russia – a husband and an underage child

The impugned provision did not refer to guilt but to continuing suspicion. The finding by a court that suspicions subsisted did not conflict with the presumption of innocence.

’s guilt (“ Novosti News” ).

    The evidence relating to the relations between the applicant, S. and P.’s competing firm did not in any way prove the applicant’s guilt. 38.

objections pertaining to the use of the evidence obtained by secret surveillance and, relying in particular on that evidence, proceeded with its detailed assessment when determining the applicants’ guilt

The conduct of the proceedings against H. and the plea bargain offered to the applicant at the beginning of his trial showed that the presiding judge had been convinced of the applicant’s guilt from the

Accordingly, no measures amounting in effect to a finding of guilt or a penalty could be taken against a defendant without his guilt having been established beforehand at a proper trial.

  Content of statements complained of Reference to applicant by high-ranking police officers, without qualification or reservation, as an accomplice to murder had been a declaration of guilt.

The applicant challenged this order, but his detention on remand was confirmed by the District Court on the basis of strong evidence of guilt found against him and the serious risk of his re-offending.

This clear admission of guilt was enough to rebut the presumption of innocence and provided sufficient justification for the Court of Appeal’s relying on this admission:   manifestly ill-founded.

It considered that the applicant’s role in the offences of smuggling and conspiracy had been “decisive”, and that his guilt had been amply proven by, among other things, the telephone calls intercepted

Prior to the amendment of the law which had served as a legal basis for the impugned measure, demolition could only be ordered following a finding of criminal guilt.